Louisiana House Bill HB182

Louisiana 2014 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/10/14
• Refer: 3/10/14

Caption

Appropriates funds for payment of judgment in the matter of "Charles J. Baggese, IV. v. Schneider National, Inc. and/or Schneider Bulk Carriers, Inc., and/or Schneider National Carriers, Inc., John Doe, State of Louisiana through the DOTD; ABC Insurance Company"

Impact

The approval of HB 182 ensures that the state complies with legal obligations arising from the court case mentioned. By allocating funds for this purpose, it reflects the state government's commitment to honoring judicial decisions and settlements. This appropriation carries implications for the management of the state budget and the allocation of resources from the General Fund, showcasing the ongoing necessity to address legal liabilities as they arise within state legislation.

Summary

House Bill 182 is a legislative measure that appropriates funds from the state General Fund of Louisiana for the fiscal year 2014-2015. The specific amount allocated is $17,000, intended for payment of a consent judgment in the case of 'Charles J. Baggese, IV. v. Schneider National, Inc., and/or Schneider Bulk Carriers, Inc., and/or Schneider National Carriers, Inc., John Doe, State of Louisiana through the Department of Transportation and Development; ABC Insurance Company.' This bill was introduced by Representative Greene and emphasizes the need to follow through on previous court mandates regarding financial settlements.

Sentiment

The sentiment around HB 182 appears to be largely practical, focusing on the administrative necessity to fund a legally mandated payment. There appears to be less contention surrounding the bill compared to more controversial legislation, as it pertains to fulfilling an obligation rather than initiating new policies or regulations. The bipartisan nature of supporting such appropriations is also indicative of a unifying purpose among lawmakers regarding compliance with court decisions.

Contention

While HB 182 does not seem to stir significant controversy, there are broader implications concerning the funding of state judgments and their impact on the fiscal health of Louisiana's budget. Discussions could arise around the prioritization of funds when addressing various financial commitments or disputes, but the bill itself is straightforward in its intent to authorize a specific payment resulting from a consent judgment. Overall, the primary focus remains on sustaining the state's legal integrity through the proper financial measures.